Otterly.ai vs Peec AI for AI Visibility Tracking in 2026

Otterly.ai is the better fit when you need to choose the engines, including Claude, Gemini, and Google AI Mode, on a published plan, and when more than one country has to be allowed before you talk to sales. Peec AI is the better fit when you want a fixed prompt count, a printed monthly answer total, and a choice of three models from a list that already includes Perplexity, Google AI Mode, and Gemini, with Naver AI Briefing and ERNIE on that same list. On 12 November 2026 neither entry plan was a seven-engine monitor you could run at full depth without giving something up. Otterly's give-up is credits. Peec's give-up is the fourth model, the second country on Starter, and Claude.

Last updated - November 2026

I am Austin Heaton, an AEO consultant. The tracking setups I review are mostly fintech, with B2B SaaS and other industries when the buyer question is the same. A visibility tool is a log. It is worth paying for when I can show the answer, the cited URL, and the country the prompt ran in. It is not worth paying for when the score cannot be opened. A packaging change that moves the engines is a new invoice, even when the vendor says the dollar amount did not move.

Otterly's plan cards, the euro prices, the credit packs, and the engine grid are from Otterly's pricing page, downloaded on 12 November 2026. The page rendered in euros for that fetch. Dollar plan prices, the reason for the change, and the migration note are from Otterly's 10 November pricing post by Thomas Peham. Prompt counts on three engines, the credit formula, and the "no limit" line on GEO audits are from the pricing help article, dated 10 November 2026. The trial table is from the free-trial article, also dated 10 November 2026. The mention-versus-citation columns are from prompt detail analysis, dated 3 November 2026, which is older than the packaging change. The one-URL audit and the score bands are from the GEO audit article, dated 18 August 2026. Peec's prices, the model lists, the answer totals, and the feature table are from Peec's brand pricing page, downloaded the same day, including the offer schema and the comparison markup. I did not log into either product.

The single-product walk-through of Otterly from 4 November is the Otterly.ai review. It describes the previous packaging: four fixed engines, and Gemini, AI Mode, and Claude as add-ons. I am not pasting those add-on prices or the old prompt caps forward. Peec beside Scrunch, including the 4 November model menu, is Peec AI vs Scrunch AI. The pricing table I downloaded on 12 November puts Perplexity inside the choose-three list. I am not pasting the older "Perplexity is an upgrade" sentence forward as today's invoice. The leave-Peec shortlist is Peec AI alternatives. A credit-metered log with a published monthly price and a homepage list of 11 models is the AthenaHQ review. Profound's trial, which still does not print a paid self-serve price, is the Profound review, and the shortlist if that trial is the wrong shape is Profound alternatives. This page stays on Otterly and Peec.

Key Takeaways

• Otterly's 10 November post says the plan prices did not change: Lite at $29 a month, Standard at $189, Premium at $489, Enterprise custom. The pricing page I downloaded on 12 November rendered those same numbers in euros, €29, €189, and €489, with a toggle labeled 15% off and save lines of €52, €340, and €880. The help article says the currency is USD or EUR depending on location. I am not converting one into the other. The cards, at the "4 of 7" example, show 16 prompts on Lite, 120 on Standard, and 403 on Premium, equal to 2,000, 15,000, and 50,000 credits.
• Every Otterly plan can track every engine it lists: ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Google AI Mode, Google Gemini, and Claude. You choose at least three, per workspace. Claude counts as 3 credits per check. The other engines count as 1. Standard adds unlimited workspaces, unlimited recommendations, 2,000 API requests, 2,000 MCP requests, 200,000 Agent Analytics events, a Data Studio connector, and a credit pack of 5,000 for €65 a month on the page I saw. Premium adds daily or weekly tracking, higher API and MCP caps, 1,000,000 Agent Analytics events, and a pack of 10,000 for €99 a month. Lite has one workspace, three recommendations a week, and no API, no Agent Analytics, and no credit pack.
• Peec's offer schema, the same day, says Starter is $95 a month, Pro is $245, and Advanced is $495. The table gives them 50, 150, and 350 prompts, three active models, daily tracking, and monthly AI answer totals of 4,500, 13,500, and 31,500. Countries are 1, 3, and 3. Projects are 1, 2, and 5. The FAQ says annual billing is 15% off. I did not see the annual dollar amounts for those three cards. Enterprise is custom, with a line that says up to 26 LLM models.
• Peec's self-serve model list, repeated on Starter, Pro, and Advanced, is ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overview, AI Mode, Gemini, Naver AI Briefing, ERNIE (Baidu), and Bing AI Mode. You pick three. An additional-model block, with the annual control switched on in the HTML I downloaded, showed $30, $70, and $140 a month for one extra model on Starter, Pro, and Advanced, next to save badges of $60, $180, and $300. I did not extract a separate month-to-month add-on price. Claude is not in the self-serve eight. It appears in the Enterprise list as Claude Sonnet, Haiku, Opus, and Fable, each with an API badge.
• Peec prints Retrievals and Citation share as separate included rows on every brand plan, including Starter, plus a domain and URL view. Otterly's 3 November prompt article stores a yes or no for the brand mention and a yes or no for the domain, and it says the export is CSV or JSON, per prompt, not in bulk. Otterly's pricing table says countries and languages are unlimited on every plan. Peec Starter is one country. Neither product is a citation guarantee.

What Changed, and What the Older Pages on This Site Were Describing

Otterly's own post, dated 10 November 2026, says the packages and the prices stay, and the thing that changes is who picks the engines and how many prompts that choice buys. The post is explicit that existing paying customers are not moved on the 10th. They get a migration email by mid-November and move by the end of November, and until then their current engines and prompts keep running. New trials get the new structure immediately. If you are reading a dashboard this week and it still shows four fixed engines, you may be on the old assignment, not on a different product. I would not argue with the screen. I would read the migration email and then compare it with the pricing page.

That is why the 4 November Otterly review is still a true description of the page I opened that day, and a bad description of the card I opened on 12 November. On 4 November, Lite was 15 prompts and the included engines were ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Copilot, with Gemini, AI Mode, and Claude priced as add-ons. On 12 November the Lite card says 16 prompts at four of seven engines, and those three former add-ons are inside the engine grid. I am not going to tell a buyer to add the old add-on prices on top of the new card. The help article's own FAQ says prices did not change and the prompt count and the engine choice did.

Peec's change is quieter because Peec did not publish a "what changed" post that I used for this article. The comparison I wrote on 4 November, Peec AI vs Scrunch, said the self-serve list was ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini, and Naver AI, and that Perplexity was outside that list. The HTML I downloaded on 12 November says something else. Perplexity is in the list. The label on the Copilot icon file is "Bing AI Mode," and the visible text does not say Microsoft Copilot. ERNIE (Baidu) is in the list. I counted eight names. I am using the 12 November labels. A buyer who needs the Copilot chat product, as opposed to a mode labeled Bing, should ask Peec whether those are the same run. I will not assert that they are, because the visible string is Bing AI Mode and the icon file is named for Copilot.

Peec also publishes an AI instructions page that says it was last updated in October 2026 and that pricing on it was confirmed on 10 July 2026. That page still describes an included set that names Microsoft Copilot, and it describes upgrade models that do not match the Enterprise list in the pricing HTML I downloaded. It also prints competitor prices I will not use, because another vendor's page is not Profound's pricing URL and it is not Peec's pricing URL either. When the instructions page and the pricing table disagree, I am using the pricing table. The instructions page is a claim about Peec, aimed at assistants. The table is the invoice.

How Do Otterly and Peec Compare?

The table uses each vendor's labels. Otterly's prompt counts are the "4 of 7 engines" example printed on the cards, which matches the help article's four-engine column and does not match every cell in the 10 November post. Peec's answer totals are the numbers printed in the table. I am not mixing a euro card with a dollar card and calling one of them cheaper. They are different currencies on the pages I opened, and Otterly says the currency depends on where you are.

If the engine you need is Claude on Otterly and a second country on Peec, those are two different upgrades, Book a Call and bring the prompt and the country. The pair shows which card is even eligible.

How Otterly's Credits Buy Prompts

Otterly's pricing FAQ says a credit is a slot, not a balance that drains and disappears in the way a usage meter sometimes does. Credits stay assigned to a workspace until you reassign them. They do not carry over as unused capacity you bank, and they do not pay for the API. The help article is blunter about the arithmetic: one credit is one prompt checked once on one engine. Daily tracking counts as 31 checks a month. Weekly counts as 10. Claude counts as 3 credits per check. Every other engine counts as 1.

The four-engine example on the cards is the number I will quote, because the pricing page and the help article agree on it: 16, 120, and 403 prompts, from 2,000, 15,000, and 50,000 credits. The 10 November post's table says 16, 120, and 400 for four engines, and 20, 160, and 535 for three engines. The help article's three-engine column says 21, 161, and 537. I am not averaging 400 and 403, and I am not averaging 20 and 21. The card a new buyer sees says 403 on Premium at four of seven. The post, written the same week, says 400. Both are Otterly's. A one-prompt gap will not change a buying decision. A thirty-prompt gap on the three-engine Premium cell might, if someone copied the blog into a spreadsheet. I would use the help article's formula and the card's four-engine example, and I would ask Otterly which three-engine number the workspace will actually display.

The formula also explains why I will not promise the card's 16 prompts if Claude is one of the four. The card does not say the 16 assumes four engines at one credit each. The FAQ says Claude is triple. If one of the four is Claude, the same 2,000 credits cannot cover 16 daily prompts under the help article's own rule, because one of those checks costs three. I did not run the calculator on the pricing page. Otterly says the workspace shows the prompt capacity when you set the engines. That screen is the number. The card is the example.

Weekly tracking is the other place the pages do not agree. The pricing FAQ says weekly checks run about four times a month instead of about 31, and that the same credits cover roughly seven times more prompts. Four times a month is not 31 divided by 7, and it is not the help article's "weekly as 10." Ten checks against 31 is a bit more than triple, not seven times. The 10 November post says Premium across four engines is either 400 prompts daily or 1,250 weekly. 1,250 divided by 400 is 3.125, which is the shape of 31 divided by 10, and it uses 400 rather than the card's 403. I am not going to pick the seven-times sentence, the ten-checks sentence, or the 1,250 sentence and call it the plan. Weekly exists on Premium and Enterprise. The multiplier is not stable across Otterly's own pages. Ask for the number the billing screen shows after you switch a workspace to weekly.

Credit packs are simpler, and they are still easy to misread. On the pricing page, Standard can add 5,000 credits for €65 a month, and Premium can add 10,000 for €99 a month. Lite cannot. The help article describes the pack sizes and does not restate the euro amounts. The 10 November post says you can top up and does not print the pack price in the section I used. I am using the pricing page for the pack price, in the currency that page rendered. I am not turning €65 into a dollar. A pack adds credits. It does not add a new engine that was missing from the seven, and it does not add SSO.

The trial is not Lite with a timer on it. The 10 November trial article says seven days, no credit card, 7,440 credits, 60 prompts on four engines or 80 on three, at least three engines chosen in onboarding, GEO audits with no limit, 1,000 API calls, 1,000 MCP calls, 50,000 Agent Analytics events, and unlimited workspaces and team members. Lite is one workspace, no API, no Agent Analytics, and 2,000 credits. A trial that includes the API will not tell you what Lite feels like. It will tell you what a larger temporary pool feels like. I would still use it to open one stored answer. I would not use the trial's 60-prompt line as the Lite allowance. The Lite card says 16 at the four-engine example.

How Peec's Three Models Buy Answers

Peec's unit is a prompt, and the plan tells you how many prompts you have before it tells you how many answers that becomes. Starter is 50 prompts, Pro is 150, Advanced is 350, and each of those plans has three active models on a daily frequency. The monthly answer row is labeled as prompts times active models times frequency: 4,500, 13,500, and 31,500. Fifty times three times thirty is 4,500. The FAQ uses the same 30-day example: 25 prompts across three models for 30 days is 2,250 answers. I am not going to call 30 a contractual month length beyond what that example and that arithmetic show. If a prompt does not run on all three models, the printed total is the ceiling of the plan's included models, not a count I watched accumulate.

Three active models, chosen from eight, is the constraint that shows up first. The eight are ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overview, AI Mode, Gemini, Naver AI Briefing, ERNIE (Baidu), and Bing AI Mode. A team that needs ChatGPT, Perplexity, and AI Mode can select them on Starter and never talk to sales. A team that needs those three plus Gemini needs a fourth model. The additional-model cards, with annual billing switched on in the HTML, were $30, $70, and $140 a month, described as the price of one additional model based on the prompts included in the plan. The save badges next to those toggles were $60, $180, and $300. I did not find 35, 85, or 165 in the HTML, which are figures I have seen in third-party write-ups of a month-to-month add-on. I am not using them. The price I could see, on the annual-on view, is the one I will cite.

The add-on grid and the choose-three list are not the same list. The add-on grid shows ChatGPT, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Bing AI Mode, Perplexity, and Gemini. The table says AI Overview, singular, inside the eight. The add-on block says AI Overviews, plural. Naver AI Briefing and ERNIE are in the eight and not in the add-on grid I parsed. I would not assume a fourth slot can be ERNIE just because ERNIE can be one of the three. I would look at the dashboard control the card describes, "add extra models anytime," and see which names it offers. I did not open that control.

Enterprise is where the list gets long, and the card says "up to 26 LLM models." I counted the self-serve eight, then the extra names in the pricing markup, and the sum is 26 if each extra name is one model. The extras, each carrying an API badge in the markup except where the name already says API, are OpenAI Luna, Qwen, Perplexity API, Gemini Search, Claude Sonnet, Claude Haiku, Claude Opus, Claude Fable, DeepSeek, Muse Spark, Meta Wonder, Grok, Mistral Small, Mistral Medium, OpenAI Astra, OpenAI Sol, OpenAI Terra, and Exa. That is 18, and 8 plus 18 is 26. I am listing them because they are in the page, not because I have run them. "Up to 26" is a ceiling. The order form should repeat the names a given quote includes. I would not assume Claude Fable is in a contract because it was in the markup.

Active models on Enterprise are unlimited, and the frequency becomes daily or weekly. That is a different product from Starter's three. A team that needs Claude on a self-serve card does not get it from Peec's $95 plan. It gets a conversation, or it gets Otterly, where Claude is one of the seven and costs triple credits instead of a sales call. Those are the two honest paths. I would not describe Peec Starter as "includes Claude" because Enterprise lists four Claude API names.

Citations, Retrievals, and the Row You Can Hand a Writer

Both products claim to store more than a score. The difference is how they label the objects. Otterly's prompt-detail article, dated 3 November, says the responses tab has the answer preview, a yes or no for the brand mention, a sentiment score, a yes or no for the domain, the competitors, and the run date. Opening a response shows the full text, the citation links when the engine provided them, and shopping cards or ads when they showed up. The citations tab lists the URL, whether the page itself mentions the brand, how many times the URL was cited, a domain category, and which competitors appear on that page. Export is CSV or JSON, per prompt, not a bulk download of every prompt. The article's engine filter list is ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot. It does not list Gemini or AI Mode in that filter section, even though the introduction names Gemini. The article is a week older than the packaging change. I am using it for the columns. I am not using its filter list as the current engine menu. The pricing page is the menu.

Peec's table separates Retrievals from Citation share, and it says both are included on Starter. A retrieval and a citation are not synonyms in the way Peec prints the rows. The shopping row even says "domains and URLs AI retrieved when recommending a product," which is a retrieved URL, not necessarily a linked citation in the answer text. I did not open Peec's metric dictionary on 12 November beyond the sentences printed in the pricing table. I will not paste a July definition forward as if I had re-proved it. What I will say is that the November table still thinks retrievals and citation share are two rows, on every brand plan, and that a domain and URL detail view is included on Starter. That is the shape I want. A score without the URL is not.

Source classification is on both, with different words. Otterly's pricing table says "Source Classification" and does not list the category names in the cell I read. Peec's cell gives examples: competitor, editorial, reference, or UGC. Examples are not a closed list. I would still rather have the examples than a blank header. Owned versus earned is the split that changes a content plan. If the tool only has one bucket called "mentions," it has mixed a brand name in a sentence with a link to a URL. Otterly's yes/no pair and Peec's two rows are both attempts to avoid that mix. I would label the chart with the vendor's own field name so a later report does not rename a retrieval into a citation.

Peec's fact-check quota is a different object again, and it is one Otterly's pricing page does not match. Starter fact-checks 5 prompts and holds 5 facts per brand. Pro is 10 prompts and 20 facts. Advanced is 25 prompts and 50 facts. Enterprise is unlimited. Custom attributes, which you define, start on Advanced. Objections, the recurring arguments the model raises, are not on Starter, monthly on Pro, and weekly on Advanced and Enterprise. I did not run a fact check. A quota of five prompts is a sample, not a review of the fee page, unless those five prompts are the fee prompts. I would spend them on the sentences a model is most likely to invent: price, eligibility, and whether a license is required. I would not spend them on a branded prompt the model can answer from the homepage.

Countries, Projects, and the Agency Shape

Otterly says unlimited countries and languages on Lite. Peec says one country on Starter and three on Pro and Advanced. That single row is enough to pick a tool for a company that sells in the US and the UK, if the US and the UK both have to be in the first invoice. Peec Starter cannot hold both, on the table I read. Otterly Lite can hold both as countries, and then the credit pool decides whether you can afford the prompts twice. Unlimited countries are not unlimited prompts. A 16-prompt Lite example, split across two countries and four engines, is a very small set. The country checkbox is not the budget. It is the permission.

Peec's FAQ says you can track any supported country or language with no additional cost, and that pricing stays tied to prompts. I am reading that next to the table, not instead of it. No additional fee means the second country is not a surcharge on Pro, where three countries are already included. It does not mean Starter's one-country cell is decorative. Languages are unlimited on Peec's brand table at every tier, which is a different row from countries. A French prompt and a US prompt are not the same kind of limit. I would not let a salesperson collapse them.

Workspaces are Otterly's agency object. Lite has one. Standard has unlimited, which is why I would not put an agency on Lite even when the credit pool looks cheap. The pricing page also describes an agency partner layer on top of Standard or Premium: pitch workspaces, Looker reports with the agency's branding, and one invoice. It does not print a separate agency price. I am not inventing one. Peec's object is a project: one, two, or five, then unlimited on Enterprise. The FAQ says prompts can be allocated across projects, and that agencies can manage several clients under one bundle. The brand page points agencies at a separate path. I did not open that path's dollar amounts on 12 November. A single-brand team does not need either agency layer. A roster does, and the roster should not discover the project cap after the prompts have been written.

Seats are the easy row. Both vendors say unlimited team members on the entry plan. Peec adds role-based permissions on every brand plan and holds SSO for Enterprise. Otterly holds SSO, enterprise compliance, and a dedicated success manager for Enterprise. A five-person team is not the reason to upgrade at either vendor, on the pages I read. The reason to upgrade is the second workspace, the API, the fourth model, or the second country.

Shopping, Crawl Logs, and What Neither Tool Writes for You

Peec includes a shopping block on Starter: a catalog from Shopify or a CSV, including a Google Merchant Center file, SKU-level visibility, position, and win rate, top merchants, shopping query fan-outs, and the domains retrieved when a product is recommended. I did not upload a catalog. I cannot tell you whether a win rate is a share of answers or a share of tiles. The row exists on the entry plan, which is more than a lot of trackers do. Otterly includes ChatGPT Ads tracking on every plan, and the prompt article can filter to responses that contained a shopping card. That is a filter on an answer, not a catalog. A retailer who needs SKU rows is reading Peec's table. A team that needs to know whether an ad appeared inside a ChatGPT answer is reading Otterly's included line. I would not buy either one as a feed manager.

The crawl log is the other split. Otterly's Agent Analytics is off on Lite, 200,000 events on Standard, and 1,000,000 on Premium. Peec's crawlability audit, 40 or more bots, is on every brand plan, and the visit caps are 4.5 million, 13.5 million, and 31.5 million. Those are not the same unit. An event in Otterly's glossary, from the older onboarding material, was a bot hit from your logs. Peec's cell says which bots hit which pages, how often, and the status code. I am not dividing 4.5 million by 200,000 and calling one product more generous. A status code and an event cap answer different questions. Both are on-site. Neither is the sentence in the answer.

Otterly's GEO audit is a page grade, not a prompt log. The August article says the check is one URL, even if you paste a domain. You cannot bulk-upload URLs in the interface, and you cannot delete an audit. The score note says anything above 51% is good and 60% to 80% is optimal. That is Otterly's scale. The 10 November pricing article says GEO audits have no limit. I am reading those together: no monthly cap was stated in the November help article, and the August article still says one URL at a time. A score of 70% is not a citation. Peec does not print that kind of content grade on the pricing table. Peec prints recommended actions, gap analysis, and agent credits: 500, 750, and 1,000 on Starter, Pro, and Advanced. The table does not say what one agent credit produces. I will not convert 500 credits into 500 pages.

Peec's pricing page also prints customer quotes with outcome figures, including a 5x year-over-year claim and a line about ranking for prompts within 24 hours. Otterly's pricing page prints customer logos. I am not using either set. A quote on a pricing page is the vendor's page. It is not a result I measured, and it is not a reason to ignore the country cap or the credit formula. Peec's page also says it is trusted by 4,000+ brands and agencies. That is Peec's line. I am not using the headcount to pick a winner.

Where Each One Is Strong, and Where It Is Not

Otterly's strong case, after 10 November, is that the engines are a choice rather than a bundle you cannot edit. Claude, Gemini, and AI Mode are on the grid, on Lite, if you are willing to spend the credits. Countries are unlimited on the entry plan. Seats, brands, and competitors are unlimited on the entry plan. The prompt article still describes a stored answer with a yes or no for the mention and a yes or no for the domain. Standard is where the API, MCP, Looker, unlimited workspaces, and Agent Analytics start, at a published price. The trial does not require a card, according to the help article, and it lasts 7 days. A team that was about to pay three add-on invoices on top of the old Lite plan should re-read the card before it signs the old quote.

Otterly's weak case is the arithmetic. Sixteen prompts at four engines is a sample, not a category, and Claude makes it smaller. The three-engine counts do not match across the post and the help article. The weekly multiplier does not match across the FAQ, the help article, and the post. The pricing page I opened was in euros while the post speaks in dollars, and I will not pretend I ran a conversion. Lite has no API and one workspace, so the cheap card is a single-brand log. Export, in the prompt article, is one prompt at a time. The GEO score is a grade of one URL. Existing customers may still be on the old engine assignment until the end of November. I would not write a December report from a mix of old runs and new runs without labeling the cutover.

Peec's strong case is that the prompt count and the answer total are printed, the models include Perplexity without a sales call, and the entry plan already has retrievals, citation share, a URL view, unlimited competitors, MCP, CSV, a shopping catalog, and a small fact-check quota. Three countries arrive on Pro, not on a custom quote. The additional model has a price on the page, at least on the annual-on view I downloaded. Enterprise's model ceiling is a list I could count to 26, which is better than "and more" with no names. The SOC 2 sentence is on the page, with the nuance that the FAQ hands the report to custom-plan customers during a review, while the table marks SOC 2 on every column. I would ask which of those two sentences the security questionnaire should trust.

Peec's weak case is everything the three-model cap and the one-country cap exclude. Claude is not a self-serve name. Copilot, if you mean the product and not the Bing AI Mode label, is not a string I could find in the table text. A fourth model is another monthly line, and I only saw it with annual billing switched on. Starter cannot hold two countries. I did not find a trial length. The AI instructions page is out of date relative to the table, which means a model that read that page in October will describe a different product. Agent credits do not say what they buy. I did not open the agency price.

On a fintech shortlist, Austin Heaton still asks which URL has to be in the answer, and which country that prompt runs in. A second login does not answer either question. Pricing for the work of choosing the prompts and checking the fee page depends on scope.

Who Each One Fits

• You need Claude, Gemini, or AI Mode on a published plan, and you can live with credits. Otterly is the card. Pick the engines first, then read the prompt count the workspace shows, especially if Claude is selected. Do not quote the 10 November blog's 400 and the card's 403 as if they were the same cell.
• You need a fixed 50, 150, or 350 prompts, with Perplexity inside the three. Peec is the card. Stay inside three models if you do not want the add-on. Do not describe Bing AI Mode as Microsoft Copilot unless Peec confirms the label.
• You sell in two countries this quarter. Otterly's table allows it on Lite, and the credits have to pay for the duplicate prompts. Peec requires Pro or Advanced before the table says three countries. Starter is the wrong Peec card for that company.
• You need a SKU file, not only an ad filter. Peec's shopping rows are on Starter. Otterly's included commerce line is ChatGPT Ads tracking, plus a shopping-card filter in the November prompt article. A catalog and a filter are different jobs.
• You need the API and a second brand workspace on the first paid plan. That is Otterly Standard, not Lite, and it is Peec Pro for the API, with two projects. Lite and Starter are single-workspace, single-project cards. An agency that buys the entry card and then opens a second client will be upgrading immediately.
• You need SSO or a model past the self-serve list. Both vendors put SSO on Enterprise. Peec's past-the-list models are the API names, including Claude. Otterly's past-the-list models are the ones the 10 November post says are not built yet: the post names Grok, DeepSeek, Qwen, and Naver as a later list. Naver is already on Peec's self-serve eight. It is not on Otterly's seven.
• You needed a credit you divide across 11 named models, with a monthly price and no prompt cap printed. That is a different invoice. The November review of that card is the AthenaHQ review. Neither Otterly nor Peec is that shape.

Verdict

I would buy Otterly when the engine list is the reason to buy, the country count has to be greater than one on the first invoice, and someone on the team will read the credit formula before they promise a prompt count. I would start on Standard if there is a second workspace or an API in the first month, and I would stay on Lite only for a single brand whose questions fit inside the four-engine example. I would not migrate an existing Otterly workspace in my head before the migration email. The vendor said current engines keep running until the account moves.

I would buy Peec when the team wants the answer math printed, Perplexity is one of three models and not a fourth, and one country is enough until Pro. I would add the fourth model only after I have seen the dashboard's price with the billing toggle in the position I will actually use. I would not buy Peec Starter for Claude, and I would not buy it because an October instructions page said Copilot was included. The table I downloaded does not say that.

I would not run both "to be safe." I would run the one whose entry card already contains the engine and the country, then keep the stored answer. Otterly is the right published card when choice of engine and choice of country are the constraints. Peec is the right published card when a fixed prompt count and a retrieval row are the constraints. Neither card guarantees a citation, and neither card is the article that has to be written after the log shows the wrong URL.

What I Could Not Confirm

• A single currency for Otterly. The pricing page rendered euros. The 10 November post states dollars. The help article says the currency depends on location. I did not convert.
• Which three-engine prompt count Otterly will display: the post's 20, 160, and 535, or the help article's 21, 161, and 537. The four-engine card says 16, 120, and 403. The post says 400 on Premium's four-engine daily cell.
• The weekly multiplier. The pricing FAQ says about four checks a month and roughly seven times the prompts. The help article says 10 weekly checks against 31 daily checks. The post says 1,250 weekly prompts against 400 daily, on Premium at four engines.
• Whether the card's 16, 120, and 403 prompts assume that none of the four engines is Claude. The FAQ says Claude costs 3 credits. The card does not show a Claude-included example.
• A month-to-month dollar for Peec's additional model. The HTML I downloaded had the annual control on, at $30, $70, and $140 a month, with save badges. I did not extract a second set of figures.
• Peec's annual dollars on Starter, Pro, and Advanced. The FAQ says 15% off. It does not print the discounted amounts in the text I extracted.
• Whether Peec's "Bing AI Mode" label is the Microsoft Copilot product. The visible name and the icon file do not match. I am not collapsing them.
• Whether a Peec add-on slot can be Naver or ERNIE. They are in the choose-three list. They are not in the add-on grid I parsed.
• A Peec trial length, or whether the trial requires a card. The page has a trial control. It does not have the day count I found on Otterly's help article.
• Peec's agency dollar amounts. I did not open that page on 12 November.
• What one Peec agent credit produces, or what Otterly's sentiment score is scaled to, beyond the prompt article calling it an NSS score.
• A stored answer, a CSV, or a catalog upload from inside either product. I read the public pages. I did not create an account.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is the better fit, Otterly or Peec?

Otterly is the better fit when you need to choose engines that include Claude, Gemini, or Google AI Mode, and when more than one country has to be allowed on the entry plan. Peec is the better fit when you want a fixed prompt count, a printed monthly answer total, and three models chosen from a list that includes Perplexity, AI Mode, and Gemini. Neither entry plan includes every engine at full prompt depth. Claude on Peec is an Enterprise API name. A fourth Peec model is an add-on. Otterly's prompt count shrinks as you add engines, and Claude costs more credits than the other engines.

Did Otterly's prices change in November 2026?

Otterly's 10 November post says the plan prices did not change, and that the prompt counts and the engine choice did. The pricing page I opened on 12 November showed monthly prices in euros and a 15% annual label. The post states the same plan names in dollars. The help article says the currency depends on location. I am not treating the euro page and the dollar post as a conversion I calculated. The 4 November review on this site describes the older fixed-engine packaging. It is not the card I am using here.

Which engines can each tool track before an upgrade?

Otterly's pricing page lists seven, and every plan can use them: ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Google AI Mode, Google Gemini, and Claude. You choose at least three per workspace. Peec's self-serve list is eight, and you choose three: ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overview, AI Mode, Gemini, Naver AI Briefing, ERNIE (Baidu), and Bing AI Mode. I did not see the words Microsoft Copilot in that Peec table. Claude is not one of Peec's eight.

How do the prompt limits differ?

Otterly sells credits and prints an example: at four of seven engines, Lite, Standard, and Premium show 16, 120, and 403 prompts. The help article says one credit is one check of one prompt on one engine, daily counts as 31 checks, and Claude counts as three. Peec sells prompts: 50, 150, and 350, with three active models, and it prints 4,500, 13,500, and 31,500 monthly answers. Peec's FAQ explains the total with a 30-day example. I would not quote Otterly's three-engine blog column and help-center column as one number. They do not match.

Can either tool track more than one country on the entry plan?

Otterly's comparison table says countries and languages are unlimited on every plan, including the entry plan. A second country still uses prompts. Peec Starter is one country. Pro and Advanced are three. Peec's FAQ says there is no extra fee for country or language. That sentence does not remove Starter's one-country cell. If you sell in two markets, the entry card is the wrong Peec card.

Do they show the cited URL, or only a score?

Otterly's prompt-detail article stores the answer, a yes or no for the brand mention, a yes or no for the domain, and the citation links when the engine provided them. Export is per prompt, as CSV or JSON. Peec's pricing table lists a domain and URL view, Retrievals, and Citation share on every brand plan, including the entry plan. I did not download either file. A coverage score without the URL is not the report I would keep.

Who should skip both?

Skip both entry plans when you need all seven of Otterly's engines and Peec's SKU catalog and a second country and Claude on one invoice. That invoice does not exist on the pages I read. Skip Otterly's entry plan when you need the API or a second workspace. Skip Peec's entry plan when you need a second country or Claude. A tool that prices a response pool instead of a prompt cap is a different comparison. No plan on this page guarantees a citation. If you want the prompt set designed around the questions buyers ask, pricing depends on scope.

Read next:

• Otterly.ai Review, November 2026
• Peec AI vs Scrunch AI
• Peec AI Alternatives
• AthenaHQ Review, November 2026
• AthenaHQ vs Profound
• Profound Review, November 2026
• Profound Alternatives

If the engine, the country, and the prompt cap still belong to two different cards, Book a Call and we will keep the one card that can run the prompt you already have.